HARVEY v. UNITED STATES

HARVEY v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. February 15, 1905.) No. 3,522. Customs Duties—Classification—Fish Prepared fob Preservation—Fish . in Packages Less than Half Barrel. Certain fish which have been dried, packed in ice or otherwise prepared for preservation, and are imported in packages containing less than one-half barrel, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 261,’ Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1651], for “fish * * * dried, * * * packed in ice • or otherwise prepared for preservation,” and not under paragraph 258 of said act, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650], as “fish in packages containing less than one-half barrel.”. On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of .United States General Appraisers. The decision below related to an importation át the port of New York by Harvey & Outerbridge, consisting of codfish in drums containing less than a half barrel. Duty was assessed by the collector at the rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem under the provision in paragraph’ 258, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30’ Stat. 171' [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650], for “fish in. packages containing less than one-half barrel, and not specially provided for.” The importers claimed the merchandise to be dutiable at the rate ,of three-fourths of one cent per pound under paragraph 261 of said act (30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1651]), relating to “fish, fresh, smoked, dried, salted, pickled, frozen, packed in ice or otherwise prepared for' preservation, not specially provided for.” The Board of General Appraisers overruled this contention, on the authority of Meyer v. U. S. (C. C.) 124 Fed. 296, where it was held.that the two provisions above quoted are equally specific, and that fish included within both _ descriptions should-be assessed under whichever of the two provisions fixes the higher rate, under the requirements, of section 7 of said act, c. 11, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1694J. Note In re Frye, G. A. 4,908, T. D. 22,969, and Loggie v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 137 Fed. 813. W. Wickham Smith, for the importers. D. Drank Eloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. [MAJORITY — WHEEEER, District Judge.] WHEEEER, District Judge. This importation is of fish, which appears to -have been dried or packed in ice or .otherwise prepared for preservation, within the provision of paragraph 261 of the act of July- 24, 1897,’ c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat! 171 [U. S. Comp. St: 1901, p. 1651]., and upon which three-fourths of a cent per pound is thereby laid. Paragraph 258 (30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 3901, p. 1650]) lays a duty of 30 per cent.-on fish in packages1 of less ¡than half a barrel, not specially provided for. This fish appears to be specially provided for by paragraph 261, as “prepared for preservation,” which takes it out of this clause of paragraph 258, under which it was assessed. Decision reversed.